Balanced Time Perspective in Britain and Russia Evgeny N. Osin, Ilona Boniwell, P. Alex Linley, Galina V. Ivanchenko

Time Perspective – Definitions The totality of the individual’s views of his psychological future and psychological past existing at a given time (Lewin, 1951). The totality of the individual’s views of his psychological future and psychological past existing at a given time (Lewin, 1951). An individual’s cognitive way of relating to the psychological concepts of past, present and future, which affects decision making and subsequent actions (Boniwell, 2005). An individual’s cognitive way of relating to the psychological concepts of past, present and future, which affects decision making and subsequent actions (Boniwell, 2005). A cognitive operation that implies both an emotional reaction to imagined time zones (such as future, present or past) and a preference for locating action in some temporal zone (Lennings, 1996). A cognitive operation that implies both an emotional reaction to imagined time zones (such as future, present or past) and a preference for locating action in some temporal zone (Lennings, 1996).

Measuring Time Perspective Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory (ZTPI) includes 5 scales: Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory (ZTPI) includes 5 scales: Past-Negative (PN) Past-Negative (PN) Past-Positive (PP) Past-Positive (PP) Present-Hedonistic (PH) Present-Hedonistic (PH) Present-Fatalistic (PF) Present-Fatalistic (PF) Future (F) Future (F) Advantages: high reliability, well- established validity. Advantages: high reliability, well- established validity. Possible issues: heterogeneous scales (PN, PH, F), lack of valence in the future scale. Possible issues: heterogeneous scales (PN, PH, F), lack of valence in the future scale.

TP – Existing Findings TP influences educational achievement, health, sleep and dreaming patterns, choice of food, romantic partner choices, sexual behaviour, risk-taking and perceived time pressure. TP influences educational achievement, health, sleep and dreaming patterns, choice of food, romantic partner choices, sexual behaviour, risk-taking and perceived time pressure. Future TP is associated with motivation, sense of responsibility, ability to organise and plan actions, self-efficacy. Future TP is associated with motivation, sense of responsibility, ability to organise and plan actions, self-efficacy. Present TP is associated with health problems, crime, addictions, dangerous driving and sexual promiscuity. Present TP is associated with health problems, crime, addictions, dangerous driving and sexual promiscuity. TP (measured using ZTPI) and well-being: TP (measured using ZTPI) and well-being: No association with future TP. No association with future TP. Weak positive associations with PH. Weak positive associations with PH. Moderate positive associations with PP and negative associations with PN. Moderate positive associations with PP and negative associations with PN.

TP Profiles and Balanced TP Five hypothetical TP profiles: hedonistic, future-oriented, balanced, risk-taking, and fatalistic (Boyd & Zimbardo, 2005). Five hypothetical TP profiles: hedonistic, future-oriented, balanced, risk-taking, and fatalistic (Boyd & Zimbardo, 2005). “In an optimally balanced time perspective, the past, present and future components blend and flexibly engage, depending on a situation’s demands and our needs and values” (Zimbardo, 2005). “In an optimally balanced time perspective, the past, present and future components blend and flexibly engage, depending on a situation’s demands and our needs and values” (Zimbardo, 2005). Balanced TP (BTP) is operationally defined as high scores on PP, PH, and F associated with low scores on PN and PF. Balanced TP (BTP) is operationally defined as high scores on PP, PH, and F associated with low scores on PN and PF. Existing operationalisations of BTP based on percentile cutoff-point criteria (Drake et al., 1998). Existing operationalisations of BTP based on percentile cutoff-point criteria (Drake et al., 1998).

Aims of the studies 1) Find out the existence of TP profiles in different cultural settings; 2) Investigate the association between TP and hedonic/eudaimonic well- being; 3) Evaluate a new operationalisation of BTP based on person-oriented approach (Magnusson) and compare it to the existing operationalisation.

The UK study (Study 1) Undergraduates of the Open University (N=179), aged 18 to 58 (M = 24). Undergraduates of the Open University (N=179), aged 18 to 58 (M = 24). Instruments: Instruments: Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory (ZTPI: Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999); Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory (ZTPI: Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999); Temporal Satisfaction with Life Scale (TSWLS: Pavot, Diener, & Suh, 1998); Temporal Satisfaction with Life Scale (TSWLS: Pavot, Diener, & Suh, 1998); Positive and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS: Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988); Positive and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS: Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988); Time Competence Scale (Shostrom, 1963); Time Competence Scale (Shostrom, 1963); Measure of the Actualization of Potential (MAP: Lefrançois, Leclerc, Dubé, Hébert, & Gaulin, 1997). Measure of the Actualization of Potential (MAP: Lefrançois, Leclerc, Dubé, Hébert, & Gaulin, 1997).

TP & WB – Associations PNPHFPPPF Time Competence -.58***.31***-.21**.34*** -.09 TSWLS: Past -.62***.31*** *** -.11 TSWLS: Present -.33***.27***.03.32***-.19* TSWLS: Future -.34***.23**.04.31***-.24** Positive Affect -.15*.34***.15.18*-.16* Negative Affect.46*** ***.22** MAP -.46***.45*** ***-.17* Pearson correlations (N=179) *** p<.001, ** p<.01, * p<.05

TP profiles Cluster analysis of standardised ZTPI scores (Ward’s method, Squared Euclidean metric) allowed to distinguish 4 clusters: Cluster analysis of standardised ZTPI scores (Ward’s method, Squared Euclidean metric) allowed to distinguish 4 clusters: 1) high PH, low F, moderate PF, PP, PN  hedonistic pattern (32%); 1) high PH, low F, moderate PF, PP, PN  hedonistic pattern (32%); 2) high F, low PH, moderate PN, PP, PF  future-oriented pattern (32%); 2) high F, low PH, moderate PN, PP, PF  future-oriented pattern (32%); 3) high F and PP, moderate PH, low PN and PF  balanced pattern (23%); 3) high F and PP, moderate PH, low PN and PF  balanced pattern (23%); 4) extremely high PN and PF, extremely low PP, moderate PH and F  negative pattern (12% of the sample). 4) extremely high PN and PF, extremely low PP, moderate PH and F  negative pattern (12% of the sample).

TP profiles and Well-Being BTP cluster shows the highest well-being scores, followed by hedonistic, future-oriented, and negative clusters. Between-cluster differences are significant (p<.05 and above) for all scales, except PA.

The Russian study (Study 2) Undergraduates of several Russian universities in 3 cities (N=289) aged 20 to 31 (M = 22). Undergraduates of several Russian universities in 3 cities (N=289) aged 20 to 31 (M = 22). Instruments (in Russian language): Instruments (in Russian language): ZTPI (Russian version by Sircova et al., 2008); ZTPI (Russian version by Sircova et al., 2008); Subjective Happiness Scale (SHS: Lyubomirsky & Lepper, 1999); Subjective Happiness Scale (SHS: Lyubomirsky & Lepper, 1999); Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS: Diener et al., 1985); Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS: Diener et al., 1985); Purpose in Life test (PIL: Crumbaugh & Maholick, 1981); Purpose in Life test (PIL: Crumbaugh & Maholick, 1981); Generalised Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES: Schwarzer, 1993); Generalised Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES: Schwarzer, 1993); Success and Failure Explanatory Style Questionnaire (SFESQ: Gordeeva et al., 2009); Success and Failure Explanatory Style Questionnaire (SFESQ: Gordeeva et al., 2009); Balanced Inventory for Desirable Responding (BIDR: Paulhus, 1998). Balanced Inventory for Desirable Responding (BIDR: Paulhus, 1998).

TP & WB – Associations PNPHFPPPF Satisfaction With Life -.45***.05.14*.21***-.23*** Subjective Happiness -.51***.18**.09.29***-.22*** Purpose In Life -.46***.10.36***.25***-.52*** Generalized Self-Efficacy -.26***.14* *** Optimism -.27***.20**.28***.21***-.27*** Pearson correlations (N=289) *** p<.001, ** p<.01, * p<.05

TP profiles 5 TP clusters were found: 5 TP clusters were found: 1) high PF, moderate PN, PH, F, PP  risk-taking pattern (25%) 1) high PF, moderate PN, PH, F, PP  risk-taking pattern (25%) 2) high F and PP, moderate PH, low PN and PF  balanced pattern (10%); 2) high F and PP, moderate PH, low PN and PF  balanced pattern (10%); 3) high F, low PH, F, moderate PN, PP  future-oriented pattern (23%); 3) high F, low PH, F, moderate PN, PP  future-oriented pattern (23%); 4) high PH, low F, moderate PF, PP, PN  hedonistic pattern (27%); 4) high PH, low F, moderate PF, PP, PN  hedonistic pattern (27%); 5) extremely high PN, extremely low PP, moderate PF, low PH and F  negative pattern (15%). 5) extremely high PN, extremely low PP, moderate PF, low PH and F  negative pattern (15%).

TP profiles and Well-Being BTP cluster shows the highest well-being scores, followed by hedonistic, future-oriented, risk- taking, and negative clusters. Between-cluster differences significant at p <.001 for all scales.

Results Summary 4 conceptually similar TP patterns were found in both samples, with only minor differences (risk-taking cluster emerged only in Russia). 4 conceptually similar TP patterns were found in both samples, with only minor differences (risk-taking cluster emerged only in Russia). The pattern of association between the TP clusters and well-being levels was also the same in both countries. The pattern of association between the TP clusters and well-being levels was also the same in both countries. In both countries the BTP cluster incorporated most of the BTP group selected by percentile cutoff criteria and statistically differed more strongly than the latter in well-being from the rest of the sample. In both countries the BTP cluster incorporated most of the BTP group selected by percentile cutoff criteria and statistically differed more strongly than the latter in well-being from the rest of the sample.

Conclusions – TP and WB The future orientation is not irrelevant to WB: it is likely associated with eudaimonic WB and plays a part in BTP. The future orientation is not irrelevant to WB: it is likely associated with eudaimonic WB and plays a part in BTP. The TP patterns proposed by Boyd & Zimbardo (2005) have been discovered empirically. The TP patterns proposed by Boyd & Zimbardo (2005) have been discovered empirically. Balanced TP is the best-off in terms of WB, compared to future-oriented and hedonistic TP profiles. Balanced TP is the best-off in terms of WB, compared to future-oriented and hedonistic TP profiles. The cluster-analysis operationalisation of BTP seems to be a better option than the percentile cutoff-point approach. The cluster-analysis operationalisation of BTP seems to be a better option than the percentile cutoff-point approach.

Person-oriented approach Psychologists study different people, and the mechanisms behind the trait patterns observed in different individuals are also not the same. Psychologists study different people, and the mechanisms behind the trait patterns observed in different individuals are also not the same. By looking only at the average picture and failing to investigate the individual differences in those mechanisms we fail to see them clearly, as the example of the association between future TP and well-being shows. By looking only at the average picture and failing to investigate the individual differences in those mechanisms we fail to see them clearly, as the example of the association between future TP and well-being shows.

Thank you! Wise Man Studying Time, by Leonardo da Vinci Presented by Evgeny Osin This research was supported by a Visiting Research Fellowship from the Leverhulme